Empirical information available for causal judgment in everyday life tends to take the form of quasi-experimental designs, lacking control groups, more than the form of contingency information that is usually presented in experiments. Stimuli were presented in which values of an outcome variable for a single individual were recorded over six time periods, and an intervention was introduced between the fifth and sixth time periods. Participants judged whether and how much the intervention affected the outcome. With numerical stimulus information, judgments were higher for a pre-intervention profile in which all values were the same than for pre-intervention profiles with any other kind of trend. With graphical stimulus information, judgments were more sensitive to trends, tending to be higher when an increase after the intervention was preceded by a decreasing series than when it was preceded by an increasing series ending on the same value at the fifth time period. It is suggested that a feature-analytic model, in which the salience of different features of information varies between presentation formats, may provide the best prospect of explaining the results.
AllanL. G. (1993). Human contingency judgements: Rule based or associative?Psychological Bulletin, 114, 435–448.
2.
AllanL. G., & JenkinsH. M. (1983). The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence. Learning and Motivation, 14, 381–405.
3.
AndersonJ. R., & SheuC.-F. (1995). Causal inferences as perceptual judgments. Memory and Cognition, 23, 510–524.
4.
BlancoF., MatuteH., & VadilloM. A. (2013). Interactive effects of the probability of the cue and the probability of the outcome on the overestimation of null contingency. Learning and Behavior, 41, 333–340.
5.
BoxG. E., JenkinsG. M., & ReinselG. C. (2008). Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and control (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
6.
ChatfieldC. (2004). The analysis of time series: An introduction (6th ed.). London: Chapman and Hall.
7.
ChengP. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367–405.
8.
CookT. D., & CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
9.
De HouwerJ., & BeckersT. (2002). A review of recent developments in research and theories on human contingency learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section B, 55, 289–310.
10.
De VriesR. M., & MoreyR. D. (2013). Bayesian hypothesis testing for single-subject designs. Psychological Methods, 18, 165–185.
11.
DennisM. J., & AhnW.-K. (2001). Primacy in causal strength judgments: The effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships. Memory and Cognition, 29, 152–164.
GopnikA., GlymourC., SobelD. M., SchulzL. E., KushnirT., & DanksD. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 1–30.
14.
GrevilleW. J., & BühnerM. (2010). Temporal predictability facilitates causal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 756–771.
15.
GriffithsT. L., & TenenbaumJ. B. (2005). Structure and strength in causal induction?Cognitive Psychology, 51, 334–384.
HagmayerY., SlomanS., LagnadoD. A., & WaldmannM. R. (2007). Causal reasoning through intervention. In GopnikA., & SchulzL. (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 86–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
HattoriM., & OaksfordM. (2007). Adaptive non-interventional heuristics for covariation detection in causal induction: Model comparison and rational analysis. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 31, 765–814.
19.
HolyoakK. J., & ChengP. W. (2011). Causal learning and inference as a rational process: The new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 135–163.
20.
LagnadoD. A., & SlomanS. (2004). The advantage of timely intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 856–876.
21.
LagnadoD. A., & SlomanS. (2006). Time as a guide to cause. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 451–460.
22.
LagnadoD. A., WaldmannM. R., HagmayerY., & SlomanS. (2007). Beyond covariation: Cues to causal structure. In GopnikA. & SchulzL. (Eds.), Causal learning: Psychology, philosophy, and computation (pp. 154–172). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
LuH., YuilleA. L., LiljeholmM., ChengP. W., & HolyoakK. J. (2008). Bayesian generic prior for causal learning. Psychological Review, 115, 955–984.
24.
MagginD. M., SwaminathanH., RogersH. J., O'KeeffeB. V., SugaiG., & HornerR. H. (2011). A generalised least squares regression approach for computing effect sizes in single-case research: Application examples. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 301–321.
25.
MandelD. R., & LehmanD. R. (1998). Integration of contingency information in judgments of cause, covariation, and probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 269–285.
26.
MatuteH. (1996). Illusion of control: Detecting response-outcome independence in analytic but not in naturalistic conditions. Psychological Science, 7, 289–293.
27.
McCainL. J., & McClearyR. (1979). The statistical analysis of the simple interrupted time-series quasi-experiment. In CookT. D. & CampbellD. T. (Eds.), Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings (pp. 233–293). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
28.
McCormackT., FroschC., PatrickF., & LagnadoD. A. (2015). Temporal and statistical information in causal structure learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 395–416.
29.
ParkerR. I., Hagan-BurkeS., & VannestK. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. Journal of Special Education, 40, 194–204.
30.
PearlJ. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
PeralesJ. C., & ShanksD. R. (2007). Models of covariation-based causal judgment: A review and synthesis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 577–596.
32.
RottmanB. M., & HastieR. (2014). Reasoning about causal relationships: Inferences on causal networks. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 109–139.
33.
RottmanB. M., & KeilF. C. (2012). Causal structure learning over time: Observations and interventions. Cognitive Psychology, 64, 93–125.
34.
SteyversM., TenenbaumJ. B., WagenmakersE. J., & BlumB. (2003). Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions. Cognitive Science, 28, 303–333.
35.
TaylorS. E., & FiskeS. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In BerkowitzL. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249–288). New York: Academic Press.
36.
WhiteP. A. (2000). Causal judgement from contingency information: Relation between subjective reports and individual tendencies in judgement. Memory and Cognition, 28, 415–426.
37.
WhiteP. A. (2003). Making causal judgments from the proportion of confirming instances: The pCI rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 710–727.
38.
WhiteP. A. (2004). Causal judgement from contingency information: A systematic test of the pCI rule. Memory and Cognition, 32, 353–368.
39.
WhiteP. A. (2006). How well is causal structure inferred from cooccurrence information?European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 454–480.
40.
WhiteP. A. (2015). Causal judgements about temporal sequences of events in single individuals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1009475
